Cowardly Trump Backing Out of Debating Harris

[uncle bernard]

Just now, Bigbrog said:

Again...why does person A make $75k and why does person B only make $25k??  Don't you think that THAT is the question we should be asking??  

I wonder if you are conflating two different things here...children going hungry, and the reason some people make more money and have better jobs than others.

Why is it important? Maybe they got laid off because an immigrant took their job. Maybe their spouse got sick and died. Maybe they're addicted to drugs. Maybe they're lazy. Who cares? What is the goal? For them to improve their life and feed their children.

If your accusation is we want to help people live better lives, guilty. This is why humans formed societies in the first place. Pack survival.

[mspart]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

She's 100% right. But this is caricatured as "she wants to take away all the police money." That's not true at all. Some of it can be redirected to more useful things. Our police budgets, especially in cities, are incredibly bloated.

If nobody told you it happened, you wouldn't even notice a 10% police budget cut. 

When you think police does not add to public safety, then lessening their budget should have no effect on public safety.  That is her position.   All you have to do is look at those jurisdictions that have reduced police budgets to see how their public safety has suffered. 

mspart

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

Excellent example of why equity does not work in practice.  

mspart 

The goal isn't for everybody to make the exact same amount of money. It's for people to make *enough* money to live a decent life in the richest country in the world.

 

2 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

So....AGAIN....you think every person, no matter the situation they were born into, should be given resources (some may need more than others) so that they all start at an equal point in their life??  For what reason??

It's a METAPHOR. The government support is supposed to supply a floor. Your basic needs are met, which means you can, if you work hard and have talent, rise far above that floor. But if you don't, at least you won't starve. And it's a lot easier to climb the ladder when you're not starving.

[mspart]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

The goal isn't for everybody to make the exact same amount of money. It's for people to make *enough* money to live a decent life in the richest country in the world.

 

It's a METAPHOR. The government support is supposed to supply a floor. Your basic needs are met, which means you can, if you work hard and have talent, rise far above that floor. But if you don't, at least you won't starve. And it's a lot easier to climb the ladder when you're not starving.

Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.  

The above is the quote.   It was not a metaphor.   It is very straightforward.  It defies logic why you are twisting in knots to say it doesn't mean what it says.  

mspart

 

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

When you think police does not add to public safety, then lessening their budget should have no effect on public safety.  That is her position.   All you have to do is look at those jurisdictions that have reduced police budgets to see how their public safety has suffered. 

mspart

There are diminishing returns. At some point you get to an effective number of police and you don't need to keep adding. If not, then the best way to make us all safe is for everybody to be a police officer mandatorily. Do you think that makes us more safe?

And we're also not just talking about total number of cops. We're talking about equipment, exploitation of overtime, etc....You could drastically cut the police budget without firing a single cop.

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.  

The above is the quote.   It was not a metaphor.   It is very straightforward.  It defies logic why you are twisting in knots to say it doesn't mean what it says.  

mspart

 

Okay, so what policy is she supporting that would make sure everybody in this country makes the same amount of money?

The "place" she's referring to is the starting line she refers to in the previous sentence.

Edited July 31 by uncle bernard

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

Why is it important? Maybe they got laid off because an immigrant took their job. Maybe their spouse got sick and died. Maybe they're addicted to drugs. Maybe they're lazy. Who cares? What is the goal? For them to improve their life and feed their children.

If your accusation is we want to help people live better lives, guilty. This is why humans formed societies in the first place. Pack survival.

Who cares the reason?!?!  You are totally fine with giving money to someone who is not able to make ends meet because of choices they made and they choose not to better themselves??  If you are that is your choice but why would you force that onto other people?

And I am not talking about the unforeseen and unfortunate things that happen in people's lives where they may find themselves in need of help...I have dealt with this personally...but it is friends, family, and community that come together and help....based on the friends, family and community's CHOICE to do so!

[uncle bernard]

Just now, Bigbrog said:

Who cares the reason?!?!  You are totally fine with giving money to someone who is not able to make ends meet because of choices they made and they choose not to better themselves??  If you are that is your choice but why would you force that onto other people?

And I am not talking about the unforeseen and unfortunate things that happen in people's lives where they may find themselves in need of help...I have dealt with this personally...but it is friends, family, and community that come together and help....based on the friends, family and community's CHOICE to do so!

Yes, because they are still human beings and the best chance they have to turn their lives around is if they get support.

This is 21st century America. We are not wolves. We don't leave the weakest in the pack to die.

[uncle bernard]

It's amazing how much of Conservatism boils down to "If people are suffering, who cares? That's their problem."

[Bigbrog]

3 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Yes, because they are still human beings and the best chance they have to turn their lives around is if they get support.

This is 21st century America. We are not wolves. We don't leave the weakest in the pack to die.

Totally fine if that is your opinion...what I don't' agree with is being forced to have that same opinion and having my money taken away from me and used on things I don't agree with.  I personally want control over my money in terms of how I donate it and support others with it. 

I know we are not wolves, but I am also a believer that by holding people accountable for their actions will have a much higher success rate in terms of more people putting forth the effort to making a livable wage, rather than giving people free handouts with no expectations that they do in fact better themselves.  Again, if you want to indiscriminately just give people free handouts without any expectations of them fine...just don't force me to do it as well.

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

Totally fine if that is your opinion...what I don't' agree with is being forced to have that same opinion and having my money taken away from me and used on things I don't agree with.  I personally want control over my money in terms of how I donate it and support others with it. 

I know we are not wolves, but I am also a believer that by holding people accountable for their actions will have a much higher success rate in terms of more people putting forth the effort to making a livable wage, rather than giving people free handouts with no expectations that they do in fact better themselves.  Again, if you want to indiscriminately just give people free handouts without any expectations of them fine...just don't force me to do it as well.

Okay, then move out to the woods and stop using public infrastructure. Nobody is forcing you to be here or live in society. 

[red viking]

Republicans operate under a premise that most people that aren't successfully financially CHOOSE to be in that position. It's a pretty dumb premise, and 100% incorrect. 

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

It's amazing how much of Conservatism boils down to "If people are suffering, who cares? That's their problem."

You know that this is such an overblown stupid broad stroke of a comment, but yet you just couldn't help yourself from writing it.  Google is your friend and it is very easy to see the big bad R's donate on average a lot more than the D's...oops

[WrestlingRasta]

38 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Why are one person's needs met by their own doing and the other person's needs are met by receiving something they didn't work for?  

Teachers don't work?

Edited July 31 by WrestlingRasta

[Bigbrog]

3 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Okay, then move out to the woods and stop using public infrastructure. Nobody is forcing you to be here or live in society. 

What does that have to do with me wanting control over my money and who I give it to based on need?  I agree we should pay taxes for roads, infrastructure, police, etc.  Are you truly that simple minded that you can't separate different things??  And/or that people have different opinions?? 

I thought you and your type were the supporters of diversity of thought...or is it as long as it is thought that you already have??

[Bigbrog]

3 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Teachers don't work?

Huh?  I think I am missing something

[Bigbrog]

6 minutes ago, red viking said:

Republicans operate under a premise that most people that aren't successfully financially CHOOSE to be in that position. It's a pretty dumb premise, and 100% incorrect. 

Yep...half of the country thinks this exact thing.  Man, it is amazing how you know that 150+ million people think the exact same way on this very topic 

[mspart]

 

23 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

There are diminishing returns. At some point you get to an effective number of police and you don't need to keep adding. If not, then the best way to make us all safe is for everybody to be a police officer mandatorily. Do you think that makes us more safe?

And we're also not just talking about total number of cops. We're talking about equipment, exploitation of overtime, etc....You could drastically cut the police budget without firing a single cop.

I think arresting criminals and putting them in the pokey would increases public safety.   When you have less police that happens less.   When you have prosecutors that do not press charges after an arrest, that happens less.  When you have judges that let dangerous criminals go without bail or very low bail (has kamala famously has supported with money), public safety suffers.   Everything about this causes public safety to suffer.

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

15 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Huh?  I think I am missing something

Was just kinda making a point in generalizing.  His example had B) making 25,000 with two kids, and your response of having needs met they didn’t work for.  My point just being that teachers are just one example of low paying professions, (yes some places are still starting out around 25-30k) but they sure do work their asses off. 

[uncle bernard]

18 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

What does that have to do with me wanting control over my money and who I give it to based on need?  I agree we should pay taxes for roads, infrastructure, police, etc.  Are you truly that simple minded that you can't separate different things??  And/or that people have different opinions?? 

I thought you and your type were the supporters of diversity of thought...or is it as long as it is thought that you already have??

Because when you live in public you consent to paying taxes to the government, elected by the people, who then decides what to do with the money. You don't get individual veto power over your tax dollars.

[uncle bernard]

23 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

You know that this is such an overblown stupid broad stroke of a comment, but yet you just couldn't help yourself from writing it.  Google is your friend and it is very easy to see the big bad R's donate on average a lot more than the D's...oops

Right and then they piss and moan when the government does the same thing as those charities except they do it way better and don't skim 80% off the top.

Ultimately, you are fine with a deserving person who need support not getting it to make sure that nobody who doesn't deserve support gets it.

I'm fine with a few undeserving people getting support if it means that everybody who does deserve it gets it.

[mspart]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

Because when you live in public you consent to paying taxes to the government, elected by the people, who then decides what to do with the money. You don't get individual veto power over your tax dollars.

True, and when it gets too burdensome, those people are voted out and a correction takes place.   That is the way it works.   I assume you have no problem with that since that is democracy.  We are facing that today with the Presidential race.   Remove current regime (Kamala represents the current regime) or try something that worked better before.  That is the choice we have.   That is democracy. 

mspart

[Bigbrog]

8 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Was just kinda making a point in generalizing.  His example had B) making 25,000 with two kids, and your response of having needs met they didn’t work for.  My point just being that teachers are just one example of low paying professions, (yes some places are still starting out around 25-30k) but they sure do work their asses off. 

I agree with teachers and them not making that much money, and it is a thankless job.  But I would have to imagine teachers all in all make a good living if they live within their means.  I know a lot of teachers through coaching, family and friends who are...and they all make a pretty darn good living.  Then again, we live in the burbs/smaller town district where there is probably more money for teachers then let's say the inner cities.  

Guess my point is that teachers are hard workers, smart and will do what it takes to make ends meet.

[WrestlingRasta]

47 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I agree with teachers and them not making that much money, and it is a thankless job.  But I would have to imagine teachers all in all make a good living if they live within their means.  I know a lot of teachers through coaching, family and friends who are...and they all make a pretty darn good living.  Then again, we live in the burbs/smaller town district where there is probably more money for teachers then let's say the inner cities.  

Guess my point is that teachers are hard workers, smart and will do what it takes to make ends meet.

Would you be in favor of publicly funded programs that supported teachers and other community professions financially when needed? I’m just trying to figure out where you are at with the didn’t work for it comment, particularly when it comes to low income but extremely impactful professions.  
 

Should teachers have to work a second job to raise their family?  (Keeping in mind teachers work many house out of school). 

Edited July 31 by WrestlingRasta

[red viking]

Funny how the U.S. has one of the, if not the highest, incarceration rates in the world. Meanwhile, we are also one of the most violent.